Where would this come from?

On a secular forum, I’m arguing pro-life and somone just responded with this bit:

“Are there alternatives? Sure, we can forbid abortions. In countries where abortion is not permitted medical complications from illicit procedures are often among the top cause of death for young women, in some cases they are the number one cause of death. (Which sort of violates that whole pro-life concept.)”

and this:

“Because stuff happens, 1 in 3 women will have at least one abortion at some point in their lifetime, without doubt some of us here already have done.”

Is this factual? Anyone can debunk this? or verify?

Thanks!

[quote=MichaelTDoyle]In countries where abortion is not permitted medical complications from illicit procedures are often among the top cause of death for young women, in some cases they are the number one cause of death.
[/quote]

Actually war is. Regardless of the cause of impregnation, abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary ‘problem’. Pregnancy lasts nine months. Snuffing out an unborn infant’s life lasts forever.

What the writer fails to point out is that forced prostitution and war rape are the problems which need addressing, not how to ‘fix’ the little consequences of people’s sick minds.

Why don’t you ask them to tell you how many deaths there were in the United States from illegal abortions right before Roe was passed. They’ll probably cite a figure under 50 women per year. This is clearly not the leading cause of death at that time. So what makes anyone think it would be now if we made abortion illegal? (I’m assuming you’re in a discussion about it being legal here in the US).

Please be aware that illegal abortions are so much safer if people have access to antiboitics. Many countries may not have that kind of medical care available if there is a problem. After antibiotics became available, deaths dropped across the board, including for illegal abortion. Also, now there are medical proceedures that are much safer and easier to do abortions, so they will remain less dangerous, most likely.

That’s the best I can do. I’m not the best abortion/pro-life factoid person.

Simply ask for proof of the “statistics” before you try to offer a rebuttal.

Just google ‘abortion statistics’ and you’ll get fascinating info. I do not believe for one second that one in three women have had an abortion. Also the number of women who died from complications of illegal procedures is miniscule. Further women are dying NOW from having abortions in perfectly legal settings.

These statements should be very easy to debunk.

Lisa n

Being pro-life doesn’t mean choosing between illegal abortions and legal ones - it means being against abortion! If this guy reckons that having abortions is so dangerous, then he’s handed you another reason for arguing that abortions are a bad idea!

As for one on three women having one - all the more reason for you to keep arguing your case. One in three people are affected by cancer - that doesn’t mean we have to like it. (Before you check, I made that up, but it’ll be about right - if he’s gonna make up stats, so can we! lol.)

cheers

cyberman

Abortion increased tenfold after it was legalized. So, say if abortion is illegal, 100 women have illegal abortions and one dies. That’s 100 innocent children dead and one woman who died in the act of killing her own child. Then abortion is made legal and in the same area, same period of time 1000 women have “safe legal abortions”. Let’s say none of them dies. That’s 1000 innocent lives lost - 900 more than the ‘illegal’ scenario. 900 innocent children killed to save one guilty woman.

Women still are dying from “legal” abortions.

Google the book Lime5

It gives a comprehensive look at today’s abortion industry and how harmful it is to women.

Abortion is definitely not the answer woment think it is.

[quote=Lisa N] I do not believe for one second that one in three women have had an abortion.
[/quote]

Lisa,
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the statistics arm of Planned Parenthood) by the time they reach the age of 45, 42% of all women will have had an abortion. Also see the statistics by the Elliot Institute, a prolife informational organization. 45,000,000 abortions in the US in the past 33 years. You bet one in 3 women of child bearing age has had an abortion. And if it is such a great thing, why aren’t they beating down the doors of the Supreme Court thanking them for the gift of this right?

Amy

Also, if illegal abortion was such a serious cause of death, it would stand to reason that “more advanced” societies in Europe like Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark would have problems with lost of women dying of illegal abortions. You see, these ultra-liberal countries restrict abortion beyond 12-24 weeks. Almost ALL of Europe has more restrictive abortion laws than the US and yet they have no epidemic of deaths due to illegal abortions. They tend to recognize that beyond 12 weeks the fetus is obviously a baby.

Here’s a concise fact sheet:
cbrinfo.com/Resources/fastfacts.html

Do not allow the person to frame the question in this way.

When someone asks, “Well, what about deaths from botched abortions!?” they are reframing the debate in a way that puts you on the defensive.
The implicit assumption in this type of question is that a fetus is NOT a human being and thus the fetus’s death is somehow more desirable than the woman’s death.

Always bring the debate back to this point: “What is a human?”

If the fetus IS a human (it has it’s own unique human DNA) then it’s murder to kill it, period.

Thus, women who die during abortions are women who die while allowing a murder to take place. The woman might not know or realize that it’s murder, but that doesn’t change what it is.

We don’t provide safe and sanitatry areas for men to beat their wives. Should we?

“I mean, if there were doctors on-call in the wife-beating-zone then that would probably save lives, and, you know, men WILL beat their wives, it’s been happening since the dawn of time. Better that it happen under safe supervision than in some dark alley somewhere.”

Don’t fall into that kind of trap.

Well, I’m getting beaten up pretty bad. They asking me to read through this.

www-unix.oit.umass.edu/%7Echeathwo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

I don’t know. If you won’t recognize a human as a human what can I say? It’s really a bit frightening how they are willing to juggle the idea of what a human is. They don’t even see that this was what the NAZI’s did, the exact thing. And I ain’t a debater. I get frustrated fast

The violinist argument. A woman wakes up in a hospital, hooked up to an unconscious violinist. The Society of Music Lovers has had her attached to the violinist to save his life, and she has to remain there for 9 months or he will die. Thompson concedes that the fetus IS a person, but argues that no person has the obligation to allow another person to use her body for life support.
Several flaws in this analogy:

  1. Violinist is a stranger, while the fetus is the woman’s own child. Parents have an obligation to care for their own children, not for strangers.
  2. The woman wasn’t hooked up to the violinist as a result of her own actions, but most woman having abortions got pregnant because of their own actions - only 1% of abortions are because of rape.
  3. Pregnancy is a natural bodily function, while “hooking up to a violinist” is a medical intervention.
  4. The violinist is ill, and if no medical intervention occured he would die of natural causes. The fetus is not ill, and if no medical intervention (abortion) occurs the fetus will live.

For more & better answers Google "Judith Jarvis Thompson violinist"
God bless you! I can’t stand arguing with pro-aborts - their mentality makes me feel sick.

Thank you BlindSheep

The person hooked up to the violinist is portrayed as unjustly held a prisoner - strapped to a bed, unable to participate in life.

Not true for pregnant women.
99% of pregnant women became that way because they chose to have sex.
During their pregnancy they can fully participate in life - they are not strapped down.

Do you see how they are trying to take a perfectly healthy/natural life process that has existed since the beginning of the human race and turn it into something unnatural and overlyburdensome?

This is the culture of death revealing itself.

[quote=Lorarose] This is the culture of death revealing itself.
[/quote]

Yep, in fact, read the book “Architechs of the Culture of Death”, that “Violinist” article by Thompson has it’s own chapter.

[quote=Lisa N]Just google ‘abortion statistics’ and you’ll get fascinating info. I do not believe for one second that one in three women have had an abortion. Also the number of women who died from complications of illegal procedures is miniscule. Further women are dying NOW from having abortions in perfectly legal settings.

These statements should be very easy to debunk.

Lisa n
[/quote]

Actually I have looked up the stats myself and women did die more often from illegal abortions than they die from legal ones now. The difference may have a lot to do with antibiotic availibity, but it is true.

For the record, I am pro-life, but what we sometimes forget is how important it is to be honest so that we don’t lose our credibility - even if it is tempting to shade the facts in our favor.

BUT, and this is a HUGE BUT - in a manner of speaking - the number of women who died from illegal abortions in America was SO low, like 30-50 women per year (PP says it was a hundered or so, Naral says it was thousands - but I’ve looked up objective sources, and that is bs.)

Personally, I don’t really care if 50 women a year die of illegal abortions. The law told them not to do it, so they are dying in the act of committing a crime - would you pass laws to protect burglars from getting hurt while breaking into your house? What would still be needed would be pregnancy resource centers so that no one would feel like it was the only option for them - and if that ain’t good enough for them, then God have mercy on thier souls.

Not that many people nowadays are dying from legal abortion - at least not WITHIN the clinic. However, it can be shown that the facts have been smeared.

First off, people like PP commit abortions AND lobby for laws protecting it. They are not the best people to get your stats from. Often it is the abortionist that rules cause of death. They have been known to cover up abortion complications. Why? Why not? They do it because they CAN. And not only that, it helps them cover up the facts that abortion is dangerous even when legal.

I have heard testimony of doctors who claim the state stats of abortion are false- that even when it listed no abortion deaths, a doctor in that state personally knew of two.

Secondly, abortion doesn’t always kill right away, but it DOES cause cancer of the uterus, ovaries, cervix, and breasts. So how many women have died from these since abortion was legalized?? HUGE amounts more than BEFORE it was legalized - and no wonder, since abortion rates have more than tripled since then.

That’s why it ticks me off so much to see these Susan G. Komen foundation stickers everywhere. It has become a popular cause to fight breast cancer - but why?? Because SO MANY WOMEN ARE DYING FROM IT NOW! And that, my friends, is BECAUSE of abortion. And yet these are the same people in the Komen foundation who give money to PP!!! I honestly think they are just out to make money for liberal causes OTHER than breast cancer research, using a facade of donation to it to get that money. The are nothing but common con artists. If you want to support breast cancer research - they are THE WORST ones to support, because hardly any of thier moneys actually goes to it!

[quote=Lorarose]The person hooked up to the violinist is portrayed as unjustly held a prisoner - strapped to a bed, unable to participate in life.

Not true for pregnant women.
99% of pregnant women became that way because they chose to have sex.
During their pregnancy they can fully participate in life - they are not strapped down.

Do you see how they are trying to take a perfectly healthy/natural life process that has existed since the beginning of the human race and turn it into something unnatural and overlyburdensome?

This is the culture of death revealing itself.
[/quote]

Yeah, I mean, if pregnancy is SO bad, then how come PP uses an excuse for late-term abortions that the woman didn’t “know” she was pregnant. Umm…okay if you can’t even tell the difference between your normal and pregnant selves, how can it be SO bad??

I’ve been pregnant before and I LOVED it. Just because you throw up once a day or so doesn’t mean you feel like bad all the time, most of the time it’s pretty sweet. I have seen other people who hated being pregnant and yeah I actually felt bad for them till I saw the things they were complaining about and realized they were just a couple of whiners who don’t know how to handle a little discomfort now and then.

[quote=MichaelTDoyle]Well, I’m getting beaten up pretty bad. They asking me to read through this.

www-unix.oit.umass.edu/%7Echeathwo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

I don’t know. If you won’t recognize a human as a human what can I say? It’s really a bit frightening how they are willing to juggle the idea of what a human is. They don’t even see that this was what the NAZI’s did, the exact thing. And I ain’t a debater. I get frustrated fast
[/quote]

This person is so twisted, she uses the so-called “extreme” cases like rape and a woman’s health to prove her point that the mother has no responsibility to let her child live.

What she inadvertantly did was create a great argument for infanticide.

She keeps putting out all this junk about how nobody should be “forced” to be responsible for helping someone else live for nine months. But wait a minute!!!

By her exact same logic, you could say, "Why should a woman be responsible for feeding and clothing her child for 18 years??? She doesn’t have the responsibility since the child is, after all, under her care and “she is housing the individual” (same wording she used) so she should be able to have the child killed at any time during the 18 years, since her right to her own life is more important than the child’s right to get what he needs from her.

What if, instead, the violinist needed to move into your house, eat the food you cook, where the clothes you buy, and perhaps maybe even nurse on your breasts for a time! (GASP!!!) in order to survive - why, you would be a nice person for letting him do it, but you certainly don’t have any moral obligation to him! You may as well go have his limbs ripped apart or have him injected with poison - since it is after all YOUR life.

And what about nursing babies? What if you can’t afford formula?? Does that make it okay to say, "Well, I can go kill my 5 month old since I can’t afford formula…and it is MY BODY and I say I don’t want him nursing on me!!!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.